@beebee3 with so many asymptomatic that means, as it spreads, lots of those kids will also be asymptomatic. That’s not a good thing. Everyone will be masked and six feet away from faculty and staff and an asymptomatic case won’t spread to those adults in that case. I’m guessing that most students with underlying conditions might stay home. The virus would spread through the students and cause a bunch of asymptomatic cases (or maybe not if they are masked and distanced from each other better than these servicemen) and symptomatic cases will be very very unlikely to go to the hospital.
@homerdog: almost all cases were asymptomatic.
Me: Where did you read that piece of information?
@homerdog: In the story. “Majority were asymptomatic and none were hospitalized.”
Me: Yes, but what I wanted to know was how you got from “the majority” to “almost all.” That’s a pretty big leap.
@homerdog, Asking me if I want more people to be seriously ill isn’t asked in good faith, nor does it have anything connected to what I’ve posted. I would appreciate an apology for even suggesting that as a possibility of why I am concerned with asymptomatic transmissions of a deadly virus. It is a terrible thing to accuse someone of wishing ill on others, and my concerns about the spread of this virus are directly because I don’t want people to become seriously ill.
Students with either mild or asymptomatic cases might easily spread it to the surrounding community- go out to eat, hang out at parties, go shopping and that to me is a large concern. Most colleges will not be able to afford to test students often enough en masse and with a sizeable outbreak (22% in under a month) will likely not have enough quarantine capacity.
However, death is not the only possible bad outcome. Longer term lung or other damage is another possibility, though there do not seem to be any studies indicating how common that is. Without that information, it will be difficult for anyone to make an informed personal risk assessment including the risk of that possibility.
Note that this was in a group new Army recruits. The age limit for entering the Army is 35 (but actual recruits tend to skew much younger so that the average age of actual recruits is under 21), and the Army has health and physical fitness standards that screen out a large percentage of young Americans from eligibility to join. So, although Army recruits tend to be male-biased (male being higher risk of COVID-19 severity), they are otherwise demographically much lower risk of COVID-19 severity than the overall US adult population. Therefore, it is not surprising that new Army recruits would have a low level of COVID-19 severity among those infected, compared to other population groups.
Of course, the base also has instructors and other soldiers there who are likely to be older than new recruits, but probably younger than a college’s faculty and staff on average.
The article didn’t say anything about transmission from the new recruits to people other than recruits. All the recruits were re-tested, but the article also doesn’t say anything about testing instructors or other people who worked on the base, like cooks.
“And who’s absorbing the cost of the test kits, the additional staff needed to administer them, and the cost of processing?”
I think that’s the main reason the CSU provost made all campus remote, online in the fall, maybe the whole year. CSUs have about 480K students and if you include faculty and staff, you’re looking at managing 500K.
“Florida is doing much better than some would have thought and oddly seems to be disappointing to some folks.”
It’s not that people are gloating when Fla gets a spike in cases or deaths, which actually is happening now, it’s the governor not looking like he’s having the best interests of his state at heart, for whatever reason, which may be political, so yes we should stop speculating on that. The data person/woman getting fired for telling the truth does not look good for the governor and his staff. There should be criticisms of governors, he or she has total accountability for their states and control basically of what happens in the fall with colleges.
Yes. There hasn’t been enough research on this yet, and too many people are totally unaware. I read people complaining (not on CC) that the number of people who have recovered needs to be emphasized. But no word ever of what that recovery or lasting effects might look like.
Interesting! At U of SC, there are smoke alarms in every room, they are very sensitive. Drinking happens, of course, but they do have to hide the bottles.
Or maybe it wasn’t reported more because people may question if masks and social distancing are as effective as we have been told.
I am worried about the fall and winter season.
I also wonder how quickly the vaccine will be adopted. But I believe once a recommended vaccine is available and enough time has elapsed that people who want it will have been able to get it, the situation is completely changed.
Right now, the vast majority of my behavior modification has been for the sake of others. My own risk of dying from covid should be below 1% (earlier I was personally nervous about long-term damage on lungs, etc, but I admit since there has been so little follow-up in the news and from infectious disease doctor friends, etc that concerns me somewhat less than it used to.). Even with low risk of dying, I am not eager to suffer with sickness! But this complete crushing of normal life has also been tragic. So I’m mostly masking, distancing, massively reducing contacts etc for the sake of others.
Post-vaccine availability, I would imagine that people, businesses, universities etc may be able to revert to normal. I think the ethics shift entirely. If people are anti-vaxx, that is their choice. They will then need to be responsible for their safety. Of course they will benefit tremendously from the 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? Of people who DO get vaccinated, plus perhaps the 10%? Of people who may have gained natural immunity by then.
Post-vaccine, I would imagine that colleges should return to normal, with normal dorm life, EC life, in-person classes, the whole shebang!
(The ethical issue that I think may remain would be to learn more about who cannot safely get vaccinated. If many people are excluded, that would change my thinking, but otherwise, I think the burden shifts from being concerned about infecting others to helping others understand the value of vaccination.)
The NYS Governor and Board of Regents have power over every college in NYS, not just SUNYs. Private colleges didn’t close up shop in March out of an overabundance of caution. They closed because the governor sent out an [executive order](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/new-york-schools-will-remain-closed-for-the-remainder-of-the-academic-year-gov-cuomo-says.html) with a deadline for clearing campuses. The state can revoke the ability to award degrees in NYS, so colleges are probably going to pay close attention to the governor’s “preferences,” many of which are coming to us in the form of legally binding executive orders.
As I explained before, colleges don’t control off campus housing. That’s a function of the counties. Town and county governments are bound by the same executive orders that colleges are, so if people are holding large gatherings or refusing to wear masks they’re violating state regulations and can be fined. If counties allow noncompliance, like Manhattan and the Hamptons are currently doing, the NYS Governor can and will rollback their regional phase. The rules will apply to all colleges within the region, so if building capacity was limited to 50% under the current phase but 25% in the rollback, colleges will have to make whatever adjustments necessary to comply with the new regulations. So colleges have a vested interest in what students in off campus housing are doing. The administration can’t control what students do in off campus apartments, but they can control who can enter campus or enroll in classes at their institution.
According to the governor, fall plans being released now are guesses about what may happen. Schools (including all NYS colleges) are required to submit reopening plans to the state. The state can require changes depending on the numbers we get in the coming weeks and throughout the fall.
“Asked” is a polite term. Compliance isn’t optional.
This is disconcerting. There is not enough information and I want more. How much SD and mask wearing was happening during training? Were the 4 initial positives interactive with the rest before results were received? Did they test staff and were they positive? What was the accuracy rate of the testing? I have to think the CDC has been studying this and can glean some info from it, but who knows. At this point we should really have more clarity on how this spreads, and doesn’t spread… I’m tied of China bring our major source of this type of information. It’s odd to me this was not publicized more - why?
@suzyQ7 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/12/defense-department-covid-19-cases-continue-on-an-upswing/
“ This week’s increase was a rate of 9 percent, for a total of 11,439. Service members make up 67 percent of those cases, with 7,675 overall, for an infection rate of 0.4 percent. Nationwide, the known infection rate is 0.6 percent.
The uptick comes as DoD is loosening restrictions on travel and base access. On Monday, a memo authorized travel to 39 states, including Arizona, Texas and Florida, where spikes in cases have since been reported.
In order to go “green,” according to the guidance, states have to report a two-week downward trajectory in both COVID-19 diagnoses and reports of related symptoms, while local hospitals have to report enough capacity to deal with a surge…
…Contractors saw the biggest uptick this week, with 99 new cases, a 14-percent increase. Of those 786 total cases, 65 have been hospitalized, 374 have recovered and 9 have died.
While the nationwide death rate stands at 6 percent, DoD’s overall rate is 0.3 percent, with 0.003 percent for troops.”
I doubt what goes on at Amherst is unique. And if students are ignoring rules against underage alcohol and pot, I doubt they will follow rules about masking and social distancing.
@CTTC All students at Amherst see the need for masks and social distancing, so students will comply, especially considering that the rules surrounding masks can be enforced so easily (easy to tell if someone is not wearing a mask). Also, the rules surrounding underage drinking and pot aren’t enforced because they don’t care to enforce them. In our orientation meeting last year with Amherst College PD, they basically told us they were cool with underage drinking; they said if we are underage and drinking at a party, just put it down and walk out the room, and we won’t get in trouble.
These schools likely won’t be able to offer students the option to return to campus then. If they did, not sure many people would show up…if they can’t test or quarantine/isolate, I assume they can’t contact trace either.
But haven’t several CSUs stated they will still have around 25% of classes in person? I know SJSU has, I think some more have as well. One of the reasons beyond certain classes really needing to be offered in person like labs, is that the CSUs that offer football really want that to happen. If no students are allowed on campus, they can’t have football.